I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that... If the disc contains a DDP file, it should be fine. There's certainly no reason to make it "look good".

An audio CD is probably not the way to do it (because of the weak error checking/handling), but WAV files and a cue sheet or track list might be acceptable. You might not even need the track list, depending on what information the Label already has. And, I assume the artwork and packaging are handled separately.

@ greynol: You don't have to guess, greynol. I can tell your right now that I'm not a musician. So?

I'm making the assumption that the "master" is a 16/44.1 CD-R and that this is going to be used to press CDs and LPs. What assumption should I have made when a record company says they got the new "masters" and the CD-R is even dated from a few days ago? Edit: I'm not at all understanding what this has to do with Rick Rubin.

FWIW Prosthetic said later that they would never use Redbook for pressing. I don't think they though I was being assumptive based on the info they provided.

@xnor: what's on the disc can hardly be more than Redbook. That's the issue. It's a CD. How many uncompressed WAV files can you fit on such a "master?"

I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing forum regulars that there is a problem with creating vinyl from CDDA.

Regarding submission via red-book, I think we've gotten just a little bit paranoid about DAE. Furthermore, I think there is quite a bit of naivete about how this process actually works. Again, how do you think this is handled between big-name studios and big-name labels? Do you think CD-Rs are never used?

Yeah, I'm not trying to play that "16 bits is more than enough for vinyl!" flame-fest. That's not even what I'm getting at.

So tell me how it's handled. I believe it should be handled at at least 24/48. I don't think I need to be a musician to state that.

...but enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not above being wrong.

I'm not stating that Redbook isn't adequate as a delivery-format. I'm also aware that some labels were said to have used lossy for mastering CDs. That's even bigger crap...but this is still completely unprofessional IMO.

I don’t understand. Is there some rule that a band has to provide a master at high bit-depth and sampling rate just so that both of those can be downscaled for release? If it’s a master, then it should be what’s going to be sold. [edit] I meant that it it isn’t under any universal obligation to be higher in quality. I think. [/edit] In that sense, 44.1/16 is fine as a format for delivery, which you’ve seemingly acknowledged once but which doesn’t agree with the rest of your complaints.

If you’re referring to the admitted shortcomings of CDDA on the level of format (not quality), those are very unlikely to matter anyway with a very recently created disk that has been treated carefully. I can’t imagine any other problem with this, other than perhaps a purely aesthetic perception that it’s weird to have to rip a CD in order to create a template from which to press other CDs.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 22 2013, 22:53)

...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.

Then it would make sense to explain your perceived problem with this scenario as clearly as possible, instead of just repeating how you’re so annoyed by it without really explaining why. Otherwise, why wouldn’t people continue to ask you in an attempt to get an elusive straight answer as to whatever has gotten you so riled up? Playing the victim isn’t going to help anyone here, either.

QUOTE

My assumption is based on the information they provided. What is yours based on? It looks like they just got a CD and they are playing it in their office. That's what I took away from that post.

Once again: What would be wrong with that?

Also, I like how you jump to a blanket dismissal of the entire recording industry, whereas it was the band who submitted the master, and this is only an anecdote about a single label. I think, if you want to complain about the industry, there are many better places to start.

It's a master, FFS. At some point something will have to be at 16/44.1 if CDs are going to be pressed. Personally, I would rather it be done by me than having to put faith in someone else.

That picture doesn't say anything about how it was recorded, mixed or mastered. Also, I don't think 48k is the best choice in samplerate, though it really shouldn't matter these days provided an SRC with adequate quality is being used.

...Otherwise, why wouldn’t people continue to ask you in an attempt to get an elusive straight answer as to whatever has gotten you so riled up? Playing the victim isn’t going to help anyone here, either.

QUOTE

My assumption is based on the information they provided. What is yours based on? It looks like they just got a CD and they are playing it in their office. That's what I took away from that post.

Once again: What would be wrong with that?

Also, I like how you jump to a blanket dismissal of the entire recording industry, whereas it was the band who submitted the master, and this is only an anecdote about a single label. I think, if you want to complain about the industry, there are many better places to start.

I made it abundantly clear in my second post what was to you "so elusive and got me all riled up." Please review it.

Where's the blanket dismissal of the industry? The subtitle?? It's called sarcasm. I know pretty well that the "band submitted the master." The label seemed to accept it as such.

So can we get back to the Redbook CD-R-thing I mentioned almost straight away? I'm sorry, but all I got was the impression that you were trying to agitate me (I like to think I've been a productive poster here in the recent past) by condescension and dismissal. "Playing the victim."

QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 22 2013, 17:09)

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 22 2013, 14:53)

...I would have never started this thread if I had known I would have to immediately go into defensive-mode.

I guess you expected us all to join in on the bashing like we do when someone posts something that was found on head-fi or stereophile?

Perhaps I should have just said that this probably happens a lot more often than you or I know and in places you or I might not expect.

I sort-of do expect the bashing of other forums whose biases don't lean in the directions as this one (right or wrong.) "Friendly rivalries." I get that. I wasn't expecting immediate personal condescension regarding my "qualifications" to question something based on whether I'm a musician or not.

Sorry if I haven't been clear:

I don't believe that, if this is what it appears to be, this is an appropriate "master" for any format. Again: Apparently Prosthetic doesn't believe it either or they wouldn't have tried to convince me that they would never use Redbook to do pressings. They reportedly agree with me on this issue...if I need to keep uploading screenshots at the expense of my anonymity I guess I can.

QUOTE (xnor @ Feb 22 2013, 17:27)

Audio CDs are 44.1/16, why would you give the record company 96/24 files?

...because, as stated above, they apparently expect them. (Hell, even iTunes is beginning to expect them now.)

I expect that...and yes: cutting records with a CD and applying an RIAA curve is bullcrap. Whether someone here likes vinyl or not. I know it happens.

@nobody in general: As db1989 said: there's plenty of things to get mad at the recording industry about. This is something I got mad about. Being condescending and dismissive isn't encouraging a productive discussion either.

To me Master simply means final means ready for production. Back earlier this often was a tape, now in the digital age it can be as simple as a cheap CD-R with files, why not?

What may cause this confusion here is that these days the word Master is often used together with music sold as HD files.Most likely spectralophiles that love this stuff may get confused how to store master quality with all its macro and micro detail on something small as a CD-R when even their 1950 tape transfer at least needs 24/192 to make the feet tapping.

...because, as stated above, they apparently expect them. (Hell, even iTunes is beginning to expect them now.)

For Audio CDs? There could be several masters, 44.1/16 for redbook, 96/24 as "HD" download, ...

It's not uncommon that different formats (Redbook, "HD" ...) are mastered differently (for example less compression).Off-topic, but that's the reason why people think higher bitrate/samplerate files sound better. A few years ago Linn did this borderline fraudulent comparison of 44.1/16 and 96/24 files - the more expensive "hi-def" files had a clearly different looking waveform ...

A Redbook CD is completely fine for a delivery format. CD-Rs shouldn't be used to cut vinyl. I think it's stupid to use a CD-R for a final master when it's easy for even a non-professional to archive at more optimal bit depths and sample rates for pre-delivery formats.

@greynol: I know you'd love to hear that records are cut with CDs. It bolsters your biases you've already elaborated on in previous conversations. That's cool.

...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies. (OT: It's impossible to scientifically demonstrate that my TT sounds better to me than my CD player. I can't get that out of the realm of subjectivism and neither can anyone else reliably.)

What I said earlier about "defensive mode:" I've been around long enough to know that claiming something could be better than CD would get me dog-piled ...and perhaps rightly so. I just genuinely wasn't expecting to get dog-piled over saying that Redbook is not ideal for a pre-delivery format.

I realize the "Mastered for iTunes" thing is somewhat misguided. I would hope that it would encourage actual modern production on top of the highly-debatable benefit of having a "hi-res" master to encode to lossy from.

...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies. (OT: It's impossible to scientifically demonstrate that my TT sounds better to me than my CD player. I can't get that out of the realm of subjectivism and neither can anyone else reliably.)

It doesn't seem that you've read much on the reproduction of high frequencies from vinyl. I'll take a flat response with low distortion across my range of hearing (and beyond, though my HF response is still pretty damn good) over the most "optimal" physically realizable configuration for vinyl playback any day of the week.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 22 2013, 16:22)

I would hope that it would encourage actual modern production on top of the highly-debatable benefit of having a "hi-res" master to encode to lossy from.

It is completely unnecessary. We were there long before Apple decided to get involved in the process. ...and by "there" I mean in areas where it counts: recording, mixing and editing. If it weren't for the opportunity to charge more, I wouldn't care about the people that whine about not having access to hi-res masters, none of whom would be any the wiser if it weren't for spectral plots and the like. To bring this back on-topic, we have no way of knowing how the content on that CD-R was produced ("modern" or otherwise). Do you disagree?

...but seriously: if my cart is specced to deliver more frequencies than my CD player it would seem fair to include whatever info is present. That's my opinion and I don't claim to hear those frequencies.

I'm only guessing, but I'll betcha there are subsonic & supersonic filters built-into the cutting amplifiers. Of course, that doesn't prevent subsonic & supersonic "stuff" from ending-up (physically/mechanically) on the record, or being generated during playback.

@ greynol in general: Welp, it remains that Apple is in the best position to encourage recording industry trends. (Whether they do or not remains to be seen. I wouldn't place a bet either way.)

Probably not going to explain why I don't think CDDA is good enough when it's really irrelevant in light of the fact that it's so incredibly easy to record and master at higher bit depths and sampling rates. The fact that the label seems to agree with me makes me wonder why I'm still even trying to have this conversation. Didn't think it had to be controversial...even here.

I'll put it this way: if I worked at a label and a signed band (not someone sending me a demo) sent me a CD-R and called it a master I'd make sure they weren't self-producing anything they were contractually doing on my label anymore. They obviously need a professional in their midst (just not Rick Rubin if it was me ) It speaks to their attention to detail, professionalism, etc, It looks like shit whether it sounds like it or not. I'd want to know what other crap they've been up regarding their production "skills."

Hm. Is the issue here that a CD – possibly an audio CD, and presumptively without RIAA EQ – is going to be used as “master”?

The “mastering” process does not mean you cannot add EQ. What is called “mastering” today, is much more than taking a master tape/file and pressing CDs/LPs from it – “mastering” is was once was called “pre-mastering”.

(And yeah, re-masters have been fiddled around with much more than just finding the old tapes and cleaning the tape heads and making another master just because the old one has been in the machine too many times.)